CNN's reporters found an old blog post of his in which he reached this wholly illogical conclusion:
Follow the logic, if you engage in a particular behavior, what also becomes protected? If we protect LGBT behavior, what other behaviors are we going to protect? Are we going to protect pedophilia? Are we going to protect polyamorous marriage relationships? Are we going to protect people who have fetishes? What’s the logical extension of this? It can’t be that we’re going to protect LGBT and then we’ll pull up the ladder. That’s not going to happen, it defies logic. We’re not thinking the consequences of these decisions through.
Clovis, the report indicates, "made the comments between 2012 and 2014 in his capacity as a talk radio host, political activist, and briefly as a candidate for US Senate in Iowa."
Similarly, in an op-ed for the local conservative blog Iowa Republican in April 2011, Clovis argued that if homosexuality is innate, then left-handed people should receive constitutional protections as well.
"Today, there are six protected classes of American citizens who benefit from the history of legal precedents associated with American traditions and the 14th Amendment. Two of these classes—religion and military—have long been established in the traditions of the nation. The other four—race, gender, disability and age—are based on primary characteristics. Primary characteristics are those human features we can generally discern by visual examination—something we can see. Following this logic, the only way to extend 14th Amendment protections to those in the LGBT lifestyles is if these behaviors are genetically mapped or otherwise discernible. The science on this issue seems to be uncertain, and if one followed the arguments from plaintiffs, the issue argued was that these individuals, because of 'love,' should be allowed to 'marry just like opposite-sex couples.' What is it really? Is this about genetics or about emotions? The stronger case is genetics, but that is not the argument being advanced. If LGBT adherents were genetically predisposed, then one must ask why a segment of the population that constitutes numbers less than one third of those who might be left-handed or one fourth the number who might be blue-eyed or one eighth the number who might be genetically predisposed to obesity should receive 14th Amendment protections when others are not even considered. Certainly left-handers have more to bark about than most. Thus, the argument must be about something other than genetic predisposition."
Clovis's nomination for the president's Cabinet has prompted considerable opposition both online and off.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) warned Trump to withdraw his nomination for Clovis, or prepare for hefty opposition from Democrats.
“President Trump should withdraw the Clovis nomination immediately,” Schumer said in a joint statement with Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI). “If President Trump refuses to withdraw Mr. Clovis, we will vehemently oppose his nomination and urge our colleagues from both parties to come together and summarily reject him as well.”
They continue: “In this time of great division, our nation cries out for healing, unity and clarity on the path forward from our elected leaders. Unfortunately, for Donald Trump to nominate and to advocate for Senate confirmation of someone with views as backwards as Mr. Clovis’s, is not only a signal to the darkest and most evil forces in this country to carry on, but a clear as day message to the world that this administration continues to tolerate hate.”
Neither Clovis nor The White House could be reached for comment.